Permitted use
Define approved tools, matter data boundaries, prohibited uses, client disclosure expectations, and the conditions for exceptions.
Apply: turn legal AI policy into operating practice
Use a governance brief to connect professional obligations, approved tools, access controls, review thresholds, and evidence for a scale decision.
Build the firm operating model
Governance and roles
Name policy owners, Gate Stewards, validators, approvers, incident routes, training responsibilities, and decision rights.
Evidence for scale
Track quality, validation gaps, handoff returns, incidents, adoption, correction load, and client impact before expanding a practice.
Controls and review thresholds
- Low consequence: experimentation stays bounded, access-controlled, and separate from client advice or released work.
- Medium consequence: client-facing workflows require documented purpose, source context, named validation, and exception handling.
- High consequence: material advice, filings, regulatory work, or external commitments require independent verification and explicit approval of residual risk.
Practice output
Produce a Governance Integrity Packet that states the intended outcome, assumptions, evidence, validation status, ownership, risk, and hold or scale recommendation.
Approved-use boundaries
Do not scale a tool because it is popular or fast. Scale only a workflow with stable controls, trained users, accountable owners, reliable evidence, and a defined response when the system or practice fails.
Continue with professional review
Return to the firm leader path, see a governance brief example, or review scale controls. This site provides general practice guidance rather than legal advice.